Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

It's about time this great game got re united


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,230 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:20 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Aug 7 2010, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The whole purpose of Licensing was to make clubs set up proper youth systems, and as you indicate earlier in your post you have to wait some time for licensing to have it's effect.

You also have to wait some time for all the lower clubs to actually have a proper youth system turning out quality players. All SL clubs may have academies but the standards have been low.

If you took out all the over the hill aussies in the bottom seven clubs and replaced them with academy players the result would be appalling one sided contests and fans simply not bothering to go in great numbers.

I think the gradual reduction in the overseas players quota will do the trick here.

I think we are beginning to see the benefits of the work at youth level as we see more and more good young players being given opportunities. The numbers may not be massive but compared to a few years ago the increase is massive.



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#82 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,359 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:20 PM

QUOTE (Keith T @ Aug 7 2010, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wish people would stop using Workington as an example in these arguments as their relegation was as the first sacrificial lamb on the alter of expansionism by the RFL. Had the RFL not assisted PSG so much to help them finish above Town then Town would have not been relegated and who knows what might have happened?

As it was they did get relegated with players on SL contracts which had to be met and in a lower league. Several players left and the performances in the lower league were poor and they dropped again into the third division and then went in to administration. The period in administration meant that they did not receive any money from the RFL from the Sky monies which only added to their predicament.

That scenario would not happen now for as Derwent states the problem has been legislated for regarding SL contracts.


The example is a bit old and clumsy, but the point is that it costs a lot of money to compete in SL and the whole idea of SL was working towards an even competition top to bottom like the NRL.

Trouble is only a small few clubs can afford SL, then a few more can only afford it propped up by a sugar daddy.

Then there's those who would struggle with it financially due to having no sugar daddy.

At this point in time that struggle can be seen at Wakefield who are in SL, equally that struggle is likely if Fev or Leigh came into SL. Fact is there are NL clubs who can't hack SL and SL clubs who can't hack SL.

I see no point to any NL club coming into SL and setting an affordale playing budget of 1 million or whatever, just as I see no point in Wakefield, Salford or Cas doing the same, especially out of a rubbish ground.

There's no bar to clubs coming into SL other than those clubs own capabilities.

There's no point to declaring you should be in SL when you could not afford it just because someone else is in SL who can't afford it. The licence system should see both out.




#83 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,000 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (l'angelo mysterioso @ Aug 7 2010, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
do you think tha prok and reg during and bfore super league helped your club?


I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.

#84 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,600 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:23 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Aug 7 2010, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.


I think that's a valid call
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#85 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,230 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Aug 7 2010, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's an easy thing to blame though and is a bit too convenient sometimes. What's the excuse for Saints ? or Bradford ?

It's very similar, at the top there is nowhere to go (no promotion), but clubs overspend to keep up the success. Simply they overspend to win a different prize, but the whole thing is exactly the same.

The problem with success is it becomes addictive to clubs and clubs will overspend to have more of it when they have had a taste of it.

Success puts up costs as to keep your players to maintain success you have to pay them more, they want a cut a bigger slice of the success pie, Saints have fallen foul of the salary cap over bonus payments for success.

Clubs over spending to maintain success (CC or GF) are as idiotic as clubs overspending to gain promotion. Its the same problem just a different prize.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#86 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,230 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:35 PM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Aug 7 2010, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've already said on this thread that I'm not an advocate of returning to automatic P&R. I just think there are better ways than a 3 year licensing sham that's all.

I'm not keen on some of the issues that the way licensing is done throws up.

Its weighted to give the RFL the last word on the decision, I think that isn't good for the game, but, and this is a big but, the clubs agreed to the rules and you would hope they understand how they work and what the outcome will more than likely be.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#87 dkw

dkw
  • Workington
  • 4,772 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 05:40 PM

So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.

#88 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,359 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 11:06 PM

QUOTE (dkw @ Aug 7 2010, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.


It is easy to sympathise with the thoughts, moans and groans of rugby League fans as regards licensing/franchising. There is always a decent point in the opinions that are made.

But too many facts are ignored. The first fact we have to face is that since the free gangway came about in 1996 RL has to try to expand - it does not have the option to stay still because no business or sport can stand still.

The second fact is that the difference between the games biggest club and a club seven or eight places down SL is very big indeed.The difference between a club another seven or eight places down the pecking order i.e. into NL1 is also very big indeed.

The third fact is we are competing with RU and soccer and have to set standards largely above what most of our clubs can manage.

There are very hard decisions to be made about the game and they conflict badly with keeping a sense of fairness towards many of those clubs who have being THE GAME for over 100 years.

Licensing is first and foremost in place to stop expansion clubs being relegated - that was exactly it's purpose when London was effectively franchised, followed by Catalans.

In short Rugby League can't afford the strength of the small town M62 clubs destroying the fledgling big clubs of the future.

Hence the unfairness and nastiness that results.

#89 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,809 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 11:32 AM

QUOTE (dkw @ Aug 7 2010, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what are peoples hopes and expectations surrounding the licenses and lack of promotion/relegation? Is the ultimate aim to have 14 teams capable of winning the league within a 3 year timescale? Will we eventually end up with a situation like in Australia where its pretty much a closed shop where teams may get in but only if they prove to be a viable and exceptional club but no clubs will ever be replaced unless they go bust? To be honest im split on this. On one hand it might not be too bad a situation for clubs outside the top league to know they have no reason to overspend trying to get promotion, a know your place sort of situation. But to remove and chance of progression could be massively negative.


A closed shop of 14 teams will mean that the crowds at other clubs will be sub-1000 gates.

The best examples of this are clubs which sadly have accepted their fates like Dewsbury, Batley and Hunslet. Those are significantly worse supported clubs than Leigh, Widnes, Fax and Barrow. Though I would predict that they'll all get worse.

You might argue that crowds for the precious "14" will improve - however these are less hardcore fans of RL (hence why they are not at games yet). The last thing RL needs to lose much of its bedrock support at its member clubs outside SL. Remember that these are the folk who pay for sky sports purely for RL and also watch internationals. Best to keep them happy by having a free gangway to SL

#90 Jimmy B

Jimmy B
  • Moderator
  • 593 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE (The Parksider @ Aug 7 2010, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The example is a bit old and clumsy, but the point is that it costs a lot of money to compete in SL and the whole idea of SL was working towards an even competition top to bottom like the NRL.

Trouble is only a small few clubs can afford SL, then a few more can only afford it propped up by a sugar daddy.

Then there's those who would struggle with it financially due to having no sugar daddy.

At this point in time that struggle can be seen at Wakefield who are in SL, equally that struggle is likely if Fev or Leigh came into SL. Fact is there are NL clubs who can't hack SL and SL clubs who can't hack SL.

I see no point to any NL club coming into SL and setting an affordale playing budget of 1 million or whatever, just as I see no point in Wakefield, Salford or Cas doing the same, especially out of a rubbish ground.

There's no bar to clubs coming into SL other than those clubs own capabilities.

There's no point to declaring you should be in SL when you could not afford it just because someone else is in SL who can't afford The licence system should see both out.


Can you put some numbers forward then as to just how many clubs should be in SL - if "only a small few clubs can afford SL" and only a few more can afford it "propped up by a sugar daddy" ?
From what your saying I would calculate 8 at the most.
Is that a viable league and good for the game ?
Lets not forget, Featherstone Rovers is a RUGBY club.